journal_commit_upgrades

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses the mutation target (journal_meta.status_latest) and the intent (mark entries as upgraded), but says nothing about idempotency, error handling for unknown slugs, or required permissions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads the trigger condition, the second states the effect. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, trigger, and effect adequately. Minor gaps around idempotency/permission behavior keep it from being fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single task_slugs parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds only framing ('affected task slugs'), so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb-plus-resource ('commit upgrades' for journal entries) and states the resulting effect on journal_meta.status_latest. An agent immediately understands the operation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like journal_write, journal_status, or journal_distill.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a clear triggering condition: call this 'after dispatching subagents to upgrade mechanical journal entries to LLM-narrative.' That is a genuine when-to-use instruction. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., what to do if no subagents ran).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.